nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (11/15/89)
Am I the only one disappointed with Laurie Anderson's latest album? In
my opinion, her first album was her best, and each succeeding album
has gotten progresively worse. The latest one is particularly boring.
Oh, well.
|>oug
"B is for Basil assaulted by bears"wombat@claris.UUCP (Scott Lindsey) (11/15/89)
In article <8911150007.AA06220@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) writes: > Am I the only one disappointed with Laurie Anderson's latest album? In > my opinion, her first album was her best, and each succeeding album > has gotten progresively worse. The latest one is particularly boring. > Oh, well. No... I've got a friend still trying to decide whether it ranks higher than _Mister Heartbreak_ or not. Personally, though, I see it as an attempt at artistic growth by Ms. Anderson. _Big Science_ was definitely a work of art, but like many great works of art, it's not one I can live with day to day: it is reserved for contemplation (read: I can't sit and program with it in my headphones :-) I think that Laurie is trying to continue to produce that which is art and that which is musically familiar and pleasant. Not an easy task, so perhaps some standards were compromised... personally, I liked it on first listening than I did _Mr. Heartbreak_ on first listening... and it's something I *can* listen to while doing something else... One *might* say that Kate's albums have gotten progressively boring since _The Dreaming_ and be right *in a very naive sense*, but, like Kate, I think that Laurie has added depth to her artistry. _Strange Angels_ contains some snippets of pure genius. Scott Lindsey |"Cold and misty morning. I heard a warning borne in the air Claris Corp. | About an age of power when no one had an hour to spare" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or Dead.
dsmith@cg-atla.UUCP (Dave Smith) (11/17/89)
In article <WOMBAT.89Nov14191603@claris.com> wombat@claris.UUCP (Scott Lindsey) writes: > >I think that Laurie is trying to continue to produce that >which is art and that which is musically familiar and pleasant. I disagree with the latter half of this. I've never though that Laurie but a great deal of work into producing "familiar and pleasant" music. To the contrary, I think she's introduced a great deal of unfamiliar and unpleasant qualities in her music. This is what makes her so interesting to listen to. "Sweaters" is an example of this, with the whining violins and harsh vocal harmonics. Listen to _United States I-IV_, there's plenty on that which I would consider unordinary, and "difficult listening". Her ability to experiment with sounds and arrangements are IMHO what makes her so interesting. Even her choices for musicians (Adrian Belew, David Van Tiegem(sp?)) follow in this quality. I tend to find Laurie a little tiresome when she begins to sway towardds the "familiar and pleasant" side of music (i.e. "Language Is A Virus", "Smoke Rings", and the new single "Baby Doll"). Then again, perhaps your definition of "familiar and pleasant" differs somewhat from mine. I'd be interested in how you view her music. -- ========================================================================== David D. Smith ...!{ulowell,ginosko,decvax,ism780c,ima}!cg-atla!dsmith "...now I'm on everyone's mailing list, for things I can't afford to buy" BOB MOULD